# If you don't understand the question, don't vote to close as duplicate of something vaguely sounding the same

Yet again at least 6 people skimmed the first paragraph and voted to close as duplicate before reading the actual question.

I rephrased this into the most trivial, obvious manner to make it absolutely 100% clear this is completely different, and yet only one of them retracted the close-vote and voted to reopen. I flagged it for moderator attention a couple hours ago, no reaction.

This community is broken.

What is the latent heat of fusion and vaporization of water at 620Pa? [duplicate]

• "This community is broken". Nice. Perhaps you would consider helping improve what you think is broken instead of making unnecessarily confrontational and defeatist comments? You will note that questions which are clear and follow site rules get rather enthusiastic response and that lots of users spend a lot of time composing good answers. – DanielSank Aug 20 '16 at 17:30
• @DanielSank: Personally, I found questiions which are clear and EASY get enthusiastic response. Questions that ask in-depth details get closed as duplicates of these easy questions. Example: "What stresses related to relativistic effects will appear in a spinning object as it approaches relativistic speeds?" closed as duplicate of "what if I spin a bar so fast its ends move faster than speed of light"? - and it appears people who voted to close were really unable to comprehend the difference. – SF. Aug 20 '16 at 18:42
• "This community is broken." - then the rational action for you to take is to move on to that community that isn't broken by your standard. What are you waiting for? – Alfred Centauri Aug 20 '16 at 23:01
• @AlfredCentauri This is not the only one possible rational solution, it is also possible on working to fix it - anyways, there are highly intelligent, rational people here. And there are also others. – peterh Aug 21 '16 at 0:19
• @SF. Examples aren't always useful in debate, people tend to focus on their induvidual details and won't understand the general context. Of course, without examples you will get the accusation that you are groundless ranting. It depends on the context, which is better. In most cases I don't give examples by default. If the other side wants them, then I give them so many, that ignoring the general parameters while they focus to the induvidual details can't be done without neglecting all rationality. It is not so hard - finding unfairly closed questions aren't hard here, unfortunately. – peterh Aug 21 '16 at 0:27
• @peterh, while I appreciate your point in general and don't wish to diminish it, the rational choice for a particular individual crucially depends on what one values in fact. My comment to the OP is based on what I judge to be the OP's values. – Alfred Centauri Aug 21 '16 at 1:11
• @AlfredCentauri The OP has a 10k+ space SE account as well, and I suspect he could have produced a part of his content also here... And, his question was a specific case, and not a dupe. He didn't get the answer, what is the latent heat of vaporization at 620kPa. The answers in the dupe don't contain even the information, how can he calculate that. – peterh Aug 21 '16 at 1:28
• @AlfredCentauri I suspect, his question was simply closed because it was short, and after thousands of VtC decisions people is a little bit bored. Maybe it didn't get the required attention. I think, maybe a "too specific" or "encyclopedic" had been a better close reason as closing to a nearly unrelated "dupe". But, the best had been if gets an answer with a method, how can he calculate (or estimate) it based on the available data (example. – peterh Aug 21 '16 at 1:33
• @peterh, my judgment is what it is; I don't see a conceptual physics question at the link. – Alfred Centauri Aug 21 '16 at 2:24
• @peterh: check the edit history. My question was closed because it was long. The voters just didn't bother reading it whole before clicking 'close'. – SF. Aug 21 '16 at 5:09
• @AlfredCentauri: Is this ConceptualPhysics.SE? Is data for calculations off-topic? – SF. Aug 21 '16 at 5:09
• SF., yes this is effectively ConceptualPhysics.SE. For example, from our moderator David Z: This site is for conceptual questions about physics – Alfred Centauri Aug 21 '16 at 15:03
• @AlfredCentauri: Oh. Sorry for the confusion then. I was mistaken thinking this site follows the policy of StackExchange of practical actual problems. Oh well, time to move on. – SF. Aug 21 '16 at 15:32
• @AlfredCentauri Maybe you make negative decisions too easy, compared to the positive ones. He made this post because he thinks, his original question was closed unfairly. This is what I also think, but you may not. If we understand the different perspectives, I think nobody behaved badly. I also think, we should have the spine to say: "sorry we looked it up" and vote for reopen. It seems our vtc voters decided more easily to vote this post down and step away. In my opinion, the only mistake what SF. made, was that he should have given us the possibility to correct our mistake politely. – peterh Aug 21 '16 at 22:29
• @peterh, what is it you're looking for? – Alfred Centauri Aug 21 '16 at 22:37

To be honest, I don't think you reacted particularly well there. The two questions are very similar, and they deal with much the same subject matter. Generally, when a question is marked as a possible duplicate, we ask that the OP of the new version make more explicit which aspects of the new question are new; this helps keep answers on topic and reduce duplicated work.

In particular, you could have responded by adding a line at the end to the effect of

I'm aware of a previous question here, which asks about the general effect of pressure on latent heats and the mechanisms behind said changes. Here I'm asking for a specific reference to the values for water as a function of pressure, and particularly for pressures as low as 620 Pa (which is too low for most obvious search results).

This shows you've done your diligence, shows potential answerers how far you've gone so they don't need to re-do track you've already covered, prevents answers which are useless to you (particularly since the main question as phrased, "Could someone provide some table, equation, graph that gives these values?", with the middle triple emphasized, doesn't make it all that clear that if it starts too high then it's not that useful to you), and it makes it clear to close-vote reviewers that you have addressed the duplicate issue.

Instead, you lashed out, did some histrionics, gutted your question and made it much less useful for future visitors, and generally did nothing at all to improve the question.

And, sincerely, saying that this community is "broken" and "analphabete", when you also failed on parts of your due diligence, is not an amazing way to make friends.

• Are you for real? Do you seriously think a question "What is the voltage of AAA battery" is "very similar" to "What is Voltage"? The difference was bolded - I seriously don't know how else I could emphasize this without removing all the rest of details I had posted. I showed I did my research. I LINKED that "duplicate" question in the very beginning! I explained the difference between the questions in my first comment. That was all insufficient! – SF. Aug 20 '16 at 21:52
• Are you for real? Are you seriously expecting help or understanding with that attitude? Your expectations of the internet are broken. There you have one concrete proposal for how you could have improved your question; if you don't like it, you can do whatever you like, but if you don't listen to suggestions, you don't have a great standing to complain afterwards. – Emilio Pisanty Aug 20 '16 at 21:54
• I expected help when I came with attitude following the spirit and the letter of the guidelines of this site, posting my question in its original form, with references to what I found, what I know of the problem, and what I have trouble finding, and why I have trouble finding it. That approach appeared to be a mistake, so I'm trying a different one: I have already tried these suggestions and they have failed spectacularly. – SF. Aug 21 '16 at 5:16
• @EmilioPisanty I am sorry to say, but on my experience the only people prefering complaints about the attitude of a critics to the worthwhile reaction, is the people having a bad conscience. I think you know very well, that this question was closed unfairly, but you won't admit it. – peterh Aug 22 '16 at 0:07
• @peterh That's curious, considering that this very comment thread kicks off with a personal attack by someone else. I will also very much thank you to not make aspersions about my motivations or frame of mind. – Emilio Pisanty Aug 22 '16 at 0:10
• @EmilioPisanty I won't do it more. I think your own conscience is enough for you in the future. It is not so bad - at least you have one. Next time, please, listen to it! – peterh Aug 22 '16 at 0:11
• @peterh Seriously, stop the moralizing - you know nothing about my frame of mind and next to nothing about my actions. (Case in point: can you tell who reopen-voted that (bad) question? Unless you've got an inside line on SE, you really need to rethink your assumptions.) I certainly take a pretty strong issue with dewy-eyed outsiders who think every question should be open, regardless of its effect on the quality of the site, and casting moral judgement from on high while they're at it. Next time your 'conscience' impels you to berate someone, how about putting a lid on it for a while? – Emilio Pisanty Aug 22 '16 at 0:24
• @EmilioPisanty Moral is important in the darkness of the algorithmically ideologized immorality. It is good to see, that you have at least a vision - others considered an offense, as I asked them about them. I can't see easily, who voted VtR to that question. I won't fight you. I am away. Peace! – peterh Aug 22 '16 at 0:39

In it's current form your question looks painfully like an exceedingly specific "do my research for me" demand. And perhaps you were just missing one notion, but when I googled steam tables latent heat of vaporization the first three non-sponsored links included tables.

OK, for one of them you needed to know that engineer sometime talk about the "enthalpy" of vaporization rather than latent heat, but the others used the term you expected.

Moreover, making assumptions about the knowledge and motives of other users is generally a mistake and casting aspersion in public site is heading afoul the "Be nice." policy.

• If you checked these tables, you'd see the unit to be PSIg. Which means zero means 1 bar. Also you too didn't bother to read the comments. – SF. Aug 20 '16 at 18:37
• engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html goes low enough for a rough extrapolation. tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html includes a calculator that will let you enter 0.62 kPa absolute, but I don't know what their source is. powerplantserviceinc.com/steamtable.pdf is in grotty English units but has an entry for almost exactly the pressure you request. And at this point you've spent more effort complaining and insulting people you were asking for help that it would have taken to find this stuff on your own. – dmckee Aug 20 '16 at 18:51
• Thank you for these links. They certainly answer the steam part. I wish ice tables latent heat of fusion was as successful. I'm getting tables of various materials but all at 1 bar. – SF. Aug 20 '16 at 21:53
• Note, the question was closed as a dupe, and not as homework/lack of effort. Which is a very clear signature of the lack of effort - from the side of the VtC voters. And, not reopening the question after this post, instead voting down the request also on the meta, is to me a very clear signature of the lack of bravery. If we made a mistake, and there is the possibility to correct it (namely, the reopen vote), then do it, it is so simple. – peterh Aug 21 '16 at 22:36
• @peterh If you think the closure as duplicate was a mistake, that's fine, but you should make your point in a less patronizing way. Comments like that are pushing the boundaries of our rules on civility. – David Z Aug 22 '16 at 15:26
• @DavidZ: Your chastizing about bad behavior would bear more weight if you were without fault. After I edited the question so thoroughly there would be absolutely no doubt it's not a duplicate, I flagged it for a moderator attention. But nope, only after I drew attention to it here, it was reopened through community votes. What does that diamond by your nickname stand for? Why are you busy chastizing people in random comments of random meta posts instead of checking flagged questions? – SF. Aug 23 '16 at 0:53
• @SF., you are transparent to me. Your formula is ancient but it has little purchase here. – Alfred Centauri Aug 23 '16 at 1:14

Broken? Nope.

First of all, the blame for it being closed in the first place is (kind of) on you. Once the possible-not-duplicate was pointed out to you, you should have updated your question like Emilio Pisanty said, just adding a simple clarification.

Second, the question was reopened.

Third, I was kind of tempted to leave the question be because of the way you made your complaint. Seriously, the best way to get your question reopened would have been to avoid insulting the physics.SE community. There are many smart people on here (though I don't claim to be one of them), and there is no need to make claims about the system being broken or people skimming. Before insulting people, think about the possibility that your question isn't clear, or can otherwise be improved.

Those are just my thoughts. Hope you get an answer.

• The "possible non-duplicate" was linked from my question in its first sentence, from moment one. That should have been a hint enough, that it doesn't answer my question, if I link it from my question. Do I have, in every question I ask, clarify I'm aware of existence of all questions with similarly sounding titles? I was really confused by the fact someone picked the question I had linked as a duplicate of mine, and there was only one explanation for that: the voters to close didn't even bother to read my question and the one they flagged as duplicate, because the differences were obvious! – SF. Aug 23 '16 at 1:06
• Oh, and my previous question? Someone correctly noticed it's not a duplicate - it's an example of a problem known in physics, but not discussed elsewhere on Physics.SE (Gamow's relativistic bicycle). Afterwards, a moderator showed up, and "solved a site problem": moved some comments to chat. And I recognize several VtC names on that question from my recent one... – SF. Aug 23 '16 at 1:16
• The question remains closed, but other than bad taste in my mouth over the closure isn't that much of a problem, because the commenter, who properly recognized the problem posted some links that would make an excellent answer. Too bad the VtC'ers never came back and are still on rampage closing questions they don't understand. – SF. Aug 23 '16 at 1:18